Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[LadyForCamus]

In the audio there is mention of the light moving around and hovering over different people. THIS CORROBORATES THE PICTURE.

There is also video of eye witness testimony who say they saw the light personally. THIS CORROBORATES THE PICTURE AND AUDIO.

Now it's up to you to debunk all THREE , not just one like you guys usually attempt to do.

For the billionth time, nothing here requires debunking.  There is nothing here that falls outside the realm of science and natural explanation:

1. A priest claims he saw a light.

2. Some other people claim they saw a light

3. There is a photo of light.

What you have is corroborating evidence of light. What you don’t have, is evidence that the light is God. No one knows for certain what the source of the light was, but there are in fact more than a few perfectly natural and mundane possibilities. You’re connecting some serious dots without reason, evidence, or justification because you already believe this god is real, and you believe you’ve got “knowledge” of his nature as it has been fed to you through years of studying the Bible.  

Huggy, you are a living, breathing example of the difference between objectivity and confirmation bias.

[downbeatplumb]

Let me refer back to my earlier quote.

---

In the audio there is mention of the light moving around and hovering over different people. THIS CORROBORATES THE PICTURE.

There is also video of eye witness testimony who say they saw the light personally. THIS CORROBORATES THE PICTURE AND AUDIO.

Now it's up to you to debunk all THREE , not just one like you guys usually attempt to do.

For the billionth time, nothing here requires debunking.  There is nothing here that falls outside the realm of science and natural explanation.

1. A priest claims he saw a light.

2. Some other people said they saw a light

3. You have a photo of light.

What you have is corroborating evidence of light. What you do not have, is evidence that the light is God. No one has any actual idea what the source of the light is, but there are in fact more than a few perfectly reasonable and natural possibilities.  You are connecting dots without reason, evidence, or justification because you already believe this god is real, and you believe you’ve got “knowledge” of his nature as it has been fed to you through years of studying the Bible.  

Huggy, you are a living, breathing example of the difference between objectivity and confirmation bias.

Whats this got to do with Odin?

[Succubus]

This is all really fascinating.

So Huggy is telling us that there's this thing that is beyond scientific understanding, but he understands it. He knows better than all the scientific minds in the world. It's really hard for me to get my head round this. It's as if he views science as some sort of primitive attempt to gain truth, and when that doesn't work, the big guns step in and use their feelings, incredulity and assertions instead. He doesn't seem to notice the immediate problem that everyone who does this can come up with any answer they like, and there's no way to tell who is right, if anyone.

(Either that or he's just parroting what some other guy said, as if that makes it true.)

This is part 8 of an excellent series, which I recommend watching all of, but this part is concerned with the kind of thinking Huggy is displaying here.

I have determined, after extensive surveying, tabulation, and data analysis, that the average creationist in the US earns $21,387.29 in family income; owns 1.2 cars, 1.8 TVs, and 2.3 kids; and has, at some point in his life, answered to the name “Bubba.” He has less than one year of college. Yet he knows more about paleontology than Bakker or Horner or Currie (or he thinks that what they know is wrong–same thing). He knows more about the definition of evolution than Gould or Dawkins. He knows more about biology than Dobzhansky or Mayr. He knows more about cosmology than Hawking, Smoot, or Witten, and more about human fossils than Johanson or the Leakeys. He knows more “true” geology than geologists, more physics than physicists, more astronomy than astronomers–and more about everything than atheists like Asimov or Sagan.

Humble, they’re not.

Things Creationists Hate

[Amarok]

Simple. 

1. If God exists, he is immaterial (be definition)
2. The universe is material (by definition)
3. If God exists, then God is the best explanation of the universe (from Occam's razor, PSR)
4. If God exists, an immaterial God created a material universe (from 1-3)
5. Creation is causation (be definition)
6. Therefore, if God exists, the immaterial has causation over the material. (from 4-5)

1: So god is made from nothing. Do you know what else is made from nothing? all non-existent things.
3: God is not a good explanation for the universe. It would pose more questions than it answers.
4: I see you don't like details, how did an immaterial being (whatever that is) create the universe?
6: none of what you put leads to that conclusion.

Indeed putting something infinitely more mysterious as an explanation is dumb . And no atheists simply insisting god is simple is just silly.

[Mister Agenda]

Principle of Sufficient Reason. Another beauty.

Is that the one that says ‘all things need a reason, because. They do. Don’t ask why, they just do’?

It's formulated different ways. One that strikes me as reasonable, is that if something exists or happened, everything that had to happen for it to exist or happen, did, in fact, happen.

[Huggy Bear]

In the audio there is mention of the light moving around and hovering over different people. THIS CORROBORATES THE PICTURE.

There is also video of eye witness testimony who say they saw the light personally. THIS CORROBORATES THE PICTURE AND AUDIO.

Now it's up to you to debunk all THREE , not just one like you guys usually attempt to do.

For the billionth time, nothing here requires debunking.  There is nothing here that falls outside the realm of science and natural explanation:

1. A priest claims he saw a light.

2. Some other people claim they saw a light

3. There is a photo of light.

What you have is corroborating evidence of light. What you don’t have, is evidence that the light is God. No one knows for certain what the source of the light was, but there are in fact more than a few perfectly natural and mundane possibilities. You’re connecting some serious dots without reason, evidence, or justification because you already believe this god is real, and you believe you’ve got “knowledge” of his nature as it has been fed to you through years of studying the Bible.  

Huggy, you are a living, breathing example of the difference between objectivity and confirmation bias.

Actually Marilyn Hickey claimed she saw and I quote:

Marilyn Hickey: Here I am on a platform facing this man and had the most unusual experience. I don't know how to describe it but it was like a wheel within a wheel lower on the ground and I could see it and as it turned it went whoosh.. whoosh.. I could hear it and this man is saying to me you're not from here you're from Denver Colorado, you're from a wooded area and you can't have a baby.

Interviewer: And he had never met you?

Marilyn Hickey: Never, ever

You guys can't claim that she's lying because the audio of what she's talking about is included at the end of the video, it happen's just exactly as she says.

I also notice how you gloss over the fact that the preacher knew exactly what people were thinking... man is not capable of doing that
1 Corinthians 14:23-25

If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

What you're doing is dismissing the evidence without actually looking at it, because you've already arrived at the preconception that everything is known.

[Mister Agenda]

If there's no explanation, then there's no explanation. Full stop. It's a logical contradiction to say there's no explanation, while simultaneously declaring the supernatural as an explanation.

Supernatural basically means unexplained scientifically... I love how you guys always try to argue semantics.

Not just unexplained. Unexplainable. Forever beyond the reach of scientific inquiry, unable to be studied by scientific means even in principle. NOT just what isn't yet explained but for which there's no particular reason to think we can never discover a natural, scientific explanation.

[Amarok]

Supernatural basically means unexplained scientifically... I love how you guys always try to argue semantics.

Unexplained means just that unexplained there is not metaphysics attached . If the Supernatural meant unexplained . Then we already have a word for that it's ignorance . Thus the word is redundant.

---

Supernatural basically means unexplained scientifically... I love how you guys always try to argue semantics.

Not just unexplained. Unexplainable. Forever beyond the reach of scientific inquiry, unable to be studied by scientific means even in principle. NOT just what isn't yet explained but for which there's no particular reason to think we can never discover a natural, scientific explanation.

But even that would not make something supernatural . It means beyond our ability to discover .

[Mister Agenda]

As a joke, or for reals?

You seem confused.

For real...

I've stated I'd provide evidence for God and challenged anyone to provide evidence against and we'd who had the most evidence for or against. You guys are on record saying my evidence is "low" in standard which I'm granting, either way low does not equate to zero, So I still have a leg up on Odin for which absolutely ZERO evidence that meets my "low" standard has been submitted.

You were supposed to provide evidence against Odin. Still waiting.

[Amarok]

And we are under no obligation to prove god didn't do it . As you have not demonstrated any reason to believe this is supernatural . aside ignorance and some guys opinion .